Q.K., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a juvenile disposition order must explicitly state that the commitment period does not exceed the statutory maximum adult sentence for the offense.
[1] A juvenile court's disposition order for commitment to a residential program must specify a definite period, which cannot exceed the statutory maximum allowed for the off…
[2] A juvenile disposition order that allows for an indeterminate commitment period, even if capped by a birthday or maximum adult sentence, is erroneous if it does not expli…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceQ.K. pleaded no contest to disruption of an educational facility. The disposition order committed Q.K. to a residential program for an indeterminate p…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Indeterminate Commitment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Q.K. pleaded no contest to disruption of an educational facility in violation of section 877.13, Florida Statutes (2003), a second degree misdemeanor that, if committed by an adult, is punishable by up to sixty days in jail. The Amended Disposition Order on appeal stated in pertinent part:
/ Committed to a licensed child-caring agency/the Department of Juvenile Justice for placement in a Moderate risk residential program, for an indeterminate period, but no longer than the child’s *
see below birthday or the maximum term of imprisonment which is _, the same time an adult may serve for each count listed above, whichever comes first....
(Italicized language handwritten by court.)
Q.K. argues on appeal that the trial court erred by failing to specify in the order that its jurisdiction over Q.K. would terminate in sixty days. We agree.
A juvenile’s commitment to a residential program, including a term of probation that follows, may not run longer than the statutory maximum allowed by law. I.B. v. State, 816 So. 2d 230, 232 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). “A disposition order must specify the period of commitment imposed by the court.” S.B. v. State, 834 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (citing M.N. v. State, 798 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (remanding “with instructions to specify the period of commitment, not to exceed the maximum adult sentence for the charge”)). “[LJanguage committing a juvenile for an indeterminate period of time no longer than a specific birthday or the maximum term of imprisonment is error because such language could allow the sentence to be construed as running longer than the statutory maximum provided for the particular offense.” L.W.G. v. State, 785 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
Because the order in this case does not explicitly state that the sentence may run no longer than sixty days, the disposition order must be corrected. We remand for correction of the Amended Disposition Order. Remanded With Directions.
GROSS, HAZOURI, JJ., and MAASS, ELIZABETH T., Associate Judge, concur. *
Jurisdiction not to exceed the statutory maximum.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- L.W.G. v. State, 785 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- I.B. v. State, 816 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- S.B. v. State, 834 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Hopo Corp. v. Keller, 798 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- M.N. v. State, 798 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)